[SG2]: GSM/P Question - Mr. Tuffley ????

> Just look under "Heavy Weapons against dispersed targets", can't

I thought so too - and my group has been playing it that way.  But if
you read that section of the rules carefully, it actually says "direct fire"
heavy weapons like tank guns firing explosive shells (I don't have my copy of
the rules here at work, but when I read it again over the weekend, I thought
the wording of that passage clearly excluded guided weapons like missiles). It
probably doesn't make too much difference, and this is as
simple a mechanism as any, except that it means a GMS/P used against
infantry would have less effect than a IAVR used against infantry, which
doesn't make sense. There's no difference between the two in their effect
vs. armoured vehicles, so the warhead is the same.  The GMS/P has much
longer range and better guidance, but the same physical damage potential
-
why would it do less damage than an IAVR at the same ranges to the same
targets?

Besides which, the original question to the list wasn't about the IMPACT of
a GMS/P hitting infantry, but about the FIREPOWER.  As you know, you
roll a firepower die and quality die for a "normal weapon" like a SAW vs. the
range die of the target.  But a GMS/P rolls quality and guidance vs. ECM
-
which troops normally don't carry. You use a d4 for "none" for vehicles that
don't have ECM, but that assumes you are firing on a vehicle size target. How
resolve this vs. infantry? Some respondants said "you just can't take the
shot" but I don't think that makes sense. Of course you can
fire a GMS/P vs. dispursed infantry - it just shouldn't do too much
damage, unless it hits a single trooper, in which case he's obliterated. I was
trying to suggest that it should work at least as effectively as an IAVR.
Maybe Firepower of at least d8, and the target uses range die as normal, or
something like that - I suggested using rangebands of 12" like a sniper
because of the better sighting systems and guidance of a GMS/P over an
IAVR.

Though the rules are generally excellent, they are a little bit hazy on this
one. Maybe Jon can leap in here with an "offical" rules interpretation???

> -----Original Message-----